Comments:Petition urges Apple to remove 'anti-gay' app

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Comments on this page were originally made using the LiquidThreads extension, which is no longer supported. It has since been exported to wikitext, but the export process was not perfect so comments may appear slightly oddly.

Start a new discussion

Seems silly

I am not even close to a man of god but why can people not share what they think with out so much hate and anger from closed minded people? You want to help people not be gay because you think it is "wrong" thats cool go ahead and try. If you want to make/encourage people gay because you feel its ok to be gay thats fine too. Why cant we just grow up and be adults about these things?

Apple should just ignore such things because it will never hurt their sales and it gives them more coverage. Apple also seems to be a gay friendly company however so they will most likly ban the app which is in their right to do so as a company. 74.202.204.100 (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

What I don't like about this is Apple's walled garden approach. I don't like these guys' message, but I'm more annoyed by the idea that Apple can and probably will censor them. Once Apple set up their system so that they could censor things, they opened themselves up to being asked to censor things. If Apple can censor anti-gay apps, what's to stop them from censoring pro-gay apps? 64.195.2.114 (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

What I don't like is the fact that people think apps are a holder for content. Why do we need "pro-gay" or "anti-gay" apps? Apps should be a repository of functionality, not content. If you want to put up content, make a website, not an app. The whole idea is dumb. An app is something like a word processor or an MP3 player, not a newspaper or website for a religious group. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying apps aren't a form of expression? Or that they shouldn't be? Games like xBill can certainly have a message, right? Are you saying that nobody should port xBill to the iPhone or to Android? Or for that matter, should Apple ban Monopoly, since Monopoly was originally intended to make a point about monopoly of land ownership? How about apps that let you keep track of how many calories you're eating, since that carries the message that you should care about such things? Or apps that help you memorize scripture?

Functionality is content. 64.195.2.114 (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that for a huge number of apps, they can be done just as well on the web. If they would the issues of censorship and app store inclusion just disappear. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Some, but not all. I've not used this app, obviously, but it looks like it's some combination of a verse-for-the-day app and possibly a kick-smoking app. You wouldn't be able to get the same kind of functionality from a non-interactive webpage. (As I write this, a Koran-verse-for-the-day program on my laptop is bugging me. I think I'll turn it off...)

As for an example of a possible 'pro-gay' app, how about a dating service app that allows for same-sex or transgender matchups? Could you really get the same functionality from a webpage? How would we feel if Apple banned such an app? 64.195.2.114 (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, ere ares dating/hookup sites and some of them have apps. But my point is that most of these simple as can be done on the web. This is certainly true for the Exodus app, and a huge number of the other apps which have been banned by Apple could have been done as web apps just as easily. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

They could be done as webapps, but there would be some difference in functionality. A word processor can be done as a webapp - look at google documents. An mp3 player could be done as a webapp, but there might be problems with the legality of it (what happens if you store pirated mp3s on the company's server?). Pandora might be given as an example of a legal mp3 player webapp. I think you would agree that there is a difference in the functionality of openoffice vs. google docs, xmms or winamp vs. pandora. A verse-of-the-day app is considerably different than going to a webpage for a verse-of-the-day.

The walled garden model simply reduces the choices available to consumers and developers. It might be the case that web-based apps can get around the garden's wall, but that is still going to affect how we use smartphones. 64.195.2.114 (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Something these religious cults should keep in mind is that "God Never Makes a Mistake." Hence, the creation of someone gay, black, asian, disabled etc...was for a reason. Just learn to love whom is around you and move on! Dobularian (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, 'ex-gay' groups could argue that God did have a purpose - by giving the person something to overcome. According to them, being tempted by other members of your sex isn't a sin, yielding to the temptation is. 64.195.2.114 (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Invalid argument.

How do you then rationalise clearly documented cases of homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom?

That's just another nail in the coffin of Creationism, and proof the bible isn't the 'word' of any deity. Otherwise, why would animals, supposedly with no free will, be created gay? Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You say that this argument is invalid? Let's take a closer look at it. The argument is an a explanatory one, and the explanandum is that some humans have a homosexual drive. Here's how I reconstruct the argument: P1. A certain class of God-given properties are given to us for the purpose of overcoming them. P2. Homosexuality is one of these properties. C. Homosexuality is given to us for the purpose of overcoming it.

Your objection is that there are cases of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom. This doesn't seem to be saying that the above argument is invalid, but objecting to either P1 or P2. If you are right, then the argument is valid, but unsound.

The ex-gays would probably reply to your objection like this: Why do animals rape and murder their conspecifics (which there are also clearly documented cases of)? Just because animals don't have free will (a claim I wouldn't endorse, but the group(s) we're talking about might), it doesn't follow that their behavior is a good model for how God wants humans to behave. Ex-gays, creationists, and Christians in general might need to give an different explanation of immoral animal behavior, since P1 doesn't apply, but it doesn't make their explanation of human desires invalid or necessarily unsound.

A 'pro-gay' Christian would probably object to this argument by denying P2 - that homosexual actions are not in the same class as murder and rape. Anti-gay Christian groups support P2 by citing 'clobber verses.' 64.195.2.114 (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

There are no "ex-gays" only people in denial, people shamed by doing things not usually their behaviour and out their faces on narcotics, or utter hypocrites. And, quit inventing idiotic words that show you as an inept apologist for some fag bashing "church".

As "God" is my co-pilot, we crashed in the Andes and I had to eat him to survive; you fail utterly at presenting an argument to support your worldview. Have a nice diurnal anomaly!

"The world will not know peace until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest".

Rationalize ancient proscriptions against homosexuality as the generally ignorant observing that anal sex carries a far higher risk of spreading STIs. Would "God" not actually be that honest to the one species granted 'free will'? 82.132.136.161 (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

"There are no "ex-gays" only people in denial, people shamed by doing things not usually their behaviour and out their faces on narcotics, or utter hypocrites. And, quit inventing idiotic words that show you as an inept apologist for some fag bashing "church"."

I quite agree with you on your first point. I'm not sure what you mean by inventing words. Are talking about "explanandum" or "pro-gay"? I assure you, explanandum is a word I didn't invent, you may wish to look it up. If you're talking about 'pro-gay', do you have some other term for "pro-gay" Christian you would like to use? There is a reason I left it in scare quotes, because to me it sounds as silly as calling a Christian who doesn't follow kosher laws 'pro-shrimp' or 'pro-cheeseburger,' but I'm not sure what other term I could use.

Have I said anything that would give you any reason to believe that I am myself a Christian of any kind? As it happens, I'm an atheist and a Discordian. However, it might be easier to convince members of the ex-gay movement to stop bashing homosexuals than to convince them that God is dead.

"Rationalize ancient proscriptions against homosexuality as the generally ignorant observing that anal sex carries a far higher risk of spreading STIs." Given that some of the clobber verses are right next to and have the same form as the kosher law verses, I doubt that there is even that much of a rationale for said ancient proscriptions. Why didn't God warn use not to eat shrimp because of mercury poisoning? What scientific rationale is there for not eating cheeseburgers? 64.195.2.114 (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

no gay is BORN a faggot, they were brought up that way by mommy and daddy. Homosexuality is WRONG. 156.8.251.250 (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

SUE Exodus International AND Apple

• “anti-gay discrimination” = discrimination against those who are anti-gay
• “bible” is never lowercase
• “The app was released in mid-February by Exodus International” = “The app was developed by Exodus International”
• “It stresses that Apple has given the app a ‘4+’ rating[,] meaning it contains “no objectionable content” MEANS that whoever rated the app at Apple is anti-gay
• The “power of Jesus” is to be good and love oneself and others, NOT to be evil and spread hate
• “…Exodus is attempting to reach young people with a message that is especially ‘dangerous’ in light of recent suicides of LGBT youth…”: a recent increase in suicides of LGBT youth?
• “…the message of Exodus International constitutes hate speech”: SUE the ministry out of existence
• “What we’re asking for is fair and equal representation on the Apple platform. We see this as a religious freedom…”: Freedom of religion was, for Thomas Jefferson, the “liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will….” AND “In a country with a state religion, freedom of religion is generally considered to mean that the government permits religious practices of other sects besides the state religion, and does not persecute believers in other faiths.” [from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion]
• “It’s an issue of tolerance,” Buchanan said. “We’re simply asking that we have the same opportunity to voice our [INTOLERANT] message as others.”
• “The issue highlights the problems Apple faces if it becomes involved in policing the content of the countless religious apps in its store…” OR? “Apple is well known for strictly monitoring the content of the apps offered to users of its gadgets…” 71.191.246.206 (talk) 06:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not Christian, I was not raised in a Christian household and even I know that homosexuality is negative. It is unsustainable, hedonistic, and contributes nothing useful to future generations of humanity. I wish the lgbtq (or whatever it is this week) movement would quit making this out to be just a problem with Christianity. People all across the world, in all times have had a natural intuitive repulsion to homosexuality. And the only exceptions they can come up with are conveniently cases where child molestation was also considered fine, i.e. ancient Rome and Greece and their practice of pederasty. Quit it already, you're not really fooling anyone. The only people who agree with you are just fed up listening to your shrill whining, and your use of government power to bully them into quiet submission.

Go ahead and censor this, like you want to censor everything else. That's all you'll ever contribute to society anyhow. That's all you're "good" for. 67.181.11.97 (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

"It is unsustainable, hedonistic, and contributes nothing useful to future generations of humanity."

So's my music collection, but only Osama thinks that's a sin. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

nonsense, good music is reproducible, provides enjoyment to others, and can be enjoyed by listeners and edifying for music students for generations to come. I doubt everything in your music collection just absolutely sucks, right? 67.181.11.97 (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Right. Since you asked, I'm especially fond of the underrated piece Love Child from Accept's legendary Balls to the Wall album. But, I digress... Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Religious hypocrisy

I hope that the people that claim homosexuality is a sin because the Bible told them so follow all the rules in the Leviticus section. It'd be pretty bad if they didn't eat like God told them to or purify themselves like God told them to, huh? 121.45.87.86 (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It still says it's wrong none the less.

Is your logic, "hey. You break some, might as well break 'em all right?"

BTW I'm not even christian LOLOLOLOLOLOL

u mad. 130.101.90.54 (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)